My previous citeshowed that 60% of Americans: believe God created the universe in six days.
So persecuted Christians the world over do take comfort in Lobohan’s interest?
That is assuming that the correct interpretation is obvious.
Yeah I never thought that. He’s too much east coast liberal elite for that.
Lobohan If God created the lights in the sky on the third day to separate night from day, how long were the first two days?
So? It isn’t as if we go about the world forcibly converting Muslims and atheists with our military or our business executives.
However weak these nations might be, they do a bang-up job suppressing the rights of their people. Look for where religious repression is tightest, and these countries pop up along with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
Well, there’s enough confusion to go around. Some people say “parthenogenesis” when “abiogenesis” would make more sense in context, yanno. Mind, as long as they don’t go around criticising other people’s intellectual rigour, it’s all gravy AFAIAC.
I’d say they’re schmucks, and I’d ask you to come up with reasons to suppose the’yre literalists that go beyond one vote. I cited several reasons it’s fair to question whether or not Bush was a Biblical literalist - it wasn’t one vote. You’re failing to see the forest for the trees here.
If you were a literalist I would assume you’d have to say it was 24 hour days, since God isn’t in the business of randomly lying to you and presumably he could have said “an age” or a great time. Reading it like it was written certainly suggests that it’s a 24 hour day. Note that it says that God created the world in six days, not “two great and unimaginable gulfs of time and four standard days.”
Of course the real problem is the rest of that ignorant passage.
So the sky is a physical dome?
God supports astrology.
Well actually God made one light and created a reflective object to shine by its light sometimes. But an ignorant, bronze age, lice infested sheep herder from a desert couldn’t be expected to know that, right?
I’m not sure what you think my opinion of Genesis will prove. Are you suggesting that literalists have the wrong idea because it’s told in metaphor? Are you suggesting that Genesis is a factual account because the first two days could have been 4 billion years long? Are you just flailing around secretly knowing that your life long belief system is built on lies and wishful thinking?
I’m guessing not the last one. 
It’s a rhetorical device to expose a false premise.
According to the OP, Bush is pandering to the fundamentalists because the OP believes that he has never stated before that he is not a Bible literalist. Fine - as far as I know, Obama has never stated before that he is not a Bible literalist. So, apparently Obama is pandering to the fundamentalists, or, neither Bush nor Obama is pandering to the fundamentalists. Got it?
Regards,
Shodan
Of course he’s pandering. They all do. The baby jesus is the first member of any president’s cabinet. However, I think we’ll see a lot less of it with Obama. He’s just not that hard core. Not in the way presidents think they need to be.
Santorum’s language didn’t survive into the bill. Presumably the bill had language that could be construed as pro-creationism. I’d like ITC to post the actual text if he wouldn’t mind.
:smack: That was my “original sin”, ** Euphonious Polemic** just followed my malapropism. I guess I watch too much “House”.
Lobohan It is clear that your point is to make fun of hypothetical biblical literalists and not to have an actual discussion. I’ll leave you to it.
Plus, I’d just had a conversation with a colleague about parthenogenic stick insects, so it was stuck in my mind… Ya, that’s the ticket.
I’m in it for a discussion, but I’d need to know what you’re asking. Posting a snippit of a creation fable has nothing to do with this discussion so far as I can tell.
Whichever.
My point is that it cannot be taken literally, that it is obviously a parable, because it is separated into days before Earth literally had days. So there is nothing hypocritical about accepting the Bible non-literally as it simply cannot be read literally, as demonstrated by the very first chapter.
The book of Genesis rather than being a tale for dullards is actually a brilliant method for condensing complex themes into bite sized chunks that bronze age herders can understand.
The amendment that made it into the Senate bill said:
The Senate passed the amendment 91-8…the senators who voted against it were Chaffee, Cochran, Collins, DeWine, Enzi, Hagel, Stevens, and Thompson.
It was removed during the conference, and the following was added to the Confrrence report:
I am sure most people in this thread would say tu quoque. For myself, they would lose my vote against any candidate who took the opposing viewpoint. This kind of crap is very high on my priority list when in comes to elections, not at the top, but close.
That article mentions the flood, but it is not clear from this article (or from others I looked at) what Mr. Vail’s book specifically says about the origin of the canyon. I also cannot find any evidence that the President had any hand in making this book available at the NPS store. So your are right, I withdraw my contention. When this first reared its head in '03, I seem to remember that the executive played a role in the decision, but I can find no supporting documentation.
That said, the attacks on science under this administration have been common in every department of government. NASA, CDC, NSF, NPS, NIH, etc… have all seen targeted funding cuts or had their public communications censored by the Bush administration. These attacks are not really indicative that President Bush is a biblical literalist, but more of a general nutjob…
Whatever. Personally I think that President Bush’s statement is one of the more intelligent thing he has said in the last several years. People who believe that the Bible is the literal word of God are a little off in my book. There is too much evidence of corruption between different translations, too many contradictions, etc… for the Bible to be 100% true whether or not you are a person of faith.
I somehow fail to see the implied distinction. A tale for dullards can certainly be well-composed. Heck, there was a similar sentiment expressed in Harman Wouk’s The Caine Mutiny, in which a Naval officer comments that the Navy itself is a brilliant system designed by geniuses to be run by idiots, i.e. all the necessary information to operating a naval vessel have been broken down into infallible easy-to-follow steps (bite-sized chunks, if you will) and another officer, young and inexperienced, should suppress all desire to find shortcuts or improvements because they will inevitably be wrong. My personal experience with the Army tends to suport this.
Besides, I don’t find the Genesis story to be all that impressive. God wanted it done - it got done. It’s not nearly as rich or layered as cosmology, astronomy, geology, abiogenesis and evolution nor do I get any indication the writer(s) of Genesis had any inkling of these sciences and was trying to simplify them for his audience.
We’re tangenting, but how about this:
“In the beginning God created the universe. Then the stars in the sky. Then the Sun, and from the Sun he pulled the Earth and from the Earth the Moon. From the Sun and the air he made the waters and from the waters he brought life.”
That’s simpler than the one “God” wrote and it’s actually kind of correct. Instead he lied and created purposely disguised the order of creation. In fact, if Genesis actually said what I just said there, about hydrogen and oxygen making water I’d be in church right now. Instead he said something exactly like a primitive person would come up with.
Why believe it’s divinely inspired if it brings no divine insights?